N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of tlie cider dated 21.6.2002 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 4) as contained in Annexure-10 whereby the petitioner lias been awarded punishment of dismissal in a departmental proceeding and for quashing of the order dated 5.11.2002 passed by the D.I.G.. South Chhotanagpur Range, Ranch! dismissing the appeal of the petitioner as contained in Annexure-12 and also the order dated 17.6.2003 passed in revision application being No. J.S.R.D.O. No. 1328/ 2003 passed by the Director General of Poliee-cum-Inspector General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi as contained in An-nexure-14 by which the revision application of the petitioner has been rejected.

2. The short fact of the case is that the petitioner was a Hawaldar in Jharkhand Police and since the month of December 2001 he was posted as incharge of Court Hazat, Jamshedpur in East Singhbhum District. The petitioners case is that one constable was posted under him for performance of duty of production of accused persons before different Courts from the Court Hazat. The Court Hazats are usually under the charge of Sub-inspector of police who act as a Court Officer. Sub-inspectors and the persons of other ranks are deployed keeping in view the number of Courts and persons to be kept in Hazat, At the relevant time except the petitioner-a Hawaldar-and one constable no body was deputed for production of the accused persons in different Courts. On 18.1.2002 also he was the Hazat in-charge with only constable namely. Umeshwar Upadhyay for performing the duty of production of the accused persons before the Courts. Accordingly the petitioner sent Umeshwar Upadhyay, the only constable deputed with him to produce three under trial prisoners before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and he himself took care of the Hazat. While the said three under trial prisoners were being brought back to Hazat after their production in the Court, one of them. namely. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, escaped from the custody. The petitioner immediately reported the same to the Jail Superintendent, Jamshedpur. The Jail Superintendent lodged an FIR which was registered as Bistupur PS. Case No. 19/2002 dated 18.1.2002 under Section 224 of the IPC (Photo Copy Annexure-1 to the writ application).

3. According to the petitioner although there was no lapse on his part in due discharge of his duty, he was surprisingly served with a charge sheet. The said charge sheet has been annexed to the writ application as Annexure-3. The petitioner was imputed wiLh the charge of dereliction of duty and lapses in performance of his duly due to which the prisoner Akhilesh Singh escaped from the police custody. It was alleged that he was vitally involved in facilitating escape of the said prisoner. The petitioner filed reply denying the said charge and stating, inter alia, that he was nol at all responsible for, neither he has got any nexus with the said incident of escaping of Akhilesh Singh who dodged and ran away from the custody of the constable Ulnesh Upadhyay. He denied that there was any lapse on his part or dereliction of duty and prayed for his exoneration. An enqiry Officer was appointed who is said to have conducted the enquiry and on conclusion submitted his report. Annexure-B, to the counter affidavit filed by the State is the enquiry report. According. to the peLiLioner the enquiry was not in accordance with law and there was violation of the principles of natural justice and he was not given proper opportunity for his defence. It was stated that the witness who were examined as departmental witnesses were the persons who were neither posted in the Court campus nor were present at the relevant time and the enquiry officer erroneously drawn his conclusin on the basis of the witnesses who were only the hearsay witnesses and were not competent. According Lo the petitioner on the basis of such colourable and illegal enq